linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,msm8939-camss

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0e030c09-0a89-4883-b958-85ddd6831407@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:28:56 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, vincent.knecht@...loo.org,
 Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Todor Tomov <todor.too@...il.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 André Apitzsch <git@...tzsch.eu>,
 phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
 Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,msm8939-camss

On 26/06/2025 12:19, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 26/06/2025 11:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> +  reg-names:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - const: csi_clk_mux
>> No, I already provided arguments in two lengthy discussions - this is
>> not sorted by name.
>>
>> Keep the same order as in previous device, so msm8916 for example. Or
>> any other, but listen to some requests to sort it by some arbitrary rule
>> which was never communicated by DT maintainers.
> 
> I don't think if you look through the history that you can find a 
> consistent rule that was used to arrange the registers.
> 
> So we are trying to have a consistent way of doing that. Thats why the 
> last number of additions have been sort by name, because it seemed to be 
> the most consistent.


Why are we discussing it again? You asked me the same here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/8f11c99b-f3ca-4501-aec4-0795643fc3a9@kernel.org/

and I already said - not sorting by name. You take the same order as
previous.

If you ever want to sort by name, answer to yourself:
NO. Take the same order as other existing device.

If you ever want to sort by value, answer to yourself:
NO.

You both came with some new, invented rules of sorting, applied it, and
now you claim that "existing devices were sorted like that". What? NO!

Best regards,
Krzysztof